Special Proceedings CASES

1. Tan vs Gedorio Facts: Upon the death of Gerardo Tan on Oct. 14, 2000, private respondents Rogelo Lim S ga and !elen Tan Racoma, "ho "ere claiming to #e the children of the decedent moved for the appointment of their attorne$%in%fact, Rom aldo Lim as special administrator. This "as opposed #$ the petitioner &ilma Tan, 'a(e Tan and Geraldine Tan, claiming that none of the respondents can #e appointed since the$ are not residing in the co ntr$, that Rom aldo does not have the same competence as &ilma Tan "ho "as alread$ acting as the de facto administratri) of the estate, and that the nearest of (in, #eing the legitmate children, is preferred in the choice of administrator *claiming that the respondent "ere illegitmate children+. !o"ever, pon fail re of &ilma to follo" a co rt directive to acco nt for the income of the estate, the co rt granted Rom aldo,s appointment as special administrator. -etitioners appealed to the .o rt of /ppeals and "as denied, hence the petition for revie" on certiorari. Issue: 0hether or not the co rt violated Sec. 1, R le 23 of the R les of .o rt in their selection of a special administrator. Ruling: The preference nder Section 1, R le 23 of the R les of .o rt for the ne)t of (in refers to the appointment of a reg lar administrator, and not of a special administrator, as the appointment of the latter lies entirel$ in the discretion of the co rt, and is not appeala#le. 4f petitioners reall$ desire to avail themselves of the order of preference , the$ sho ld p rs e the appointment of a reg lar administrator and p t to an end the dela$ "hich necessitated the appointment of a special administrator. Comment: The co rt "as correct in granting the appointment of Rom aldo as special administrator since it "as sho"n that &ilma "as in remiss after failing to follo" the series of directives and e)tension given to her to acco nt for the estate. 2. Co vs Rosario Facts: -etitioner L is .o and &icente 5 "ere appointed #$ the Regional Trial .o rt of 6a(ati on 6arch 4, 1773, as special co%administrators of the estate of petitioner,s father. !o"ever, pon motion of other heirs, petitioner,s appointment "as set aside, "here#$ petitioner nominated his son, /lvin .o, in his place, "hich "as granted #$ the co rt. 8o r $ears later, ho"ever, the RT., pon motion of one the heirs, revo(ed the appointment of /lvin in vie" of the several criminal cases filed against the latter. -etitioner files petition for revie" on certiorari nder R le 49.

Issue: 0hether or not the co rt erred in revo(ing /lvin .o,s appointment as special co% administratro. Ruling: The trial co rt did not act "ith grave a# se of discretion in revo(ing /lvin:s appointment as special co%administrator. Settled is the r le that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed #$ the r les regarding the selection or removal of reg lar administrators. .o rts ma$ appoint or remove special administrators #ased on gro nds other than those en merated in the R les, at their discretion. The special administrator is an officer of the co rt "ho is s #;ect to its s pervision and control and "ho is e)pected to "or( for the #est interest of the entire estate, especiall$ "ith respect to its smooth administration and earliest settlement. Comment: The .o rt r led "isel$ #eca se in s ch state, /lvin "ill #e too occ pied defending himself from the n mero s criminal case file against him to the detriment of his ;o# as special co%administrator. /nd also, same "ith the previo s case, the prolonged litigation on the simple iss e of the removal of a special co%administrator co ld have #een avoided if the trial co rt promptl$ appointed a reg lar administrator. 3. Alan Sheker vs state o! Alice Sheker Facts: The "ill of /lice She(er "as admitted #$ the co rt and thereafter all creditors "ere ordered to file their respective claims against the estate. On Oct. 2, 2002, a contingent claim for agent,s commission in the total amo nt of -431,290.00 "as filed #$ petitioner. !o"ever, the e)ec tri) of the estate moved for the dismissal of the mone$ claim on the gro nd that no doc(et fee "as paid, no certification for non%for m shopping "as attached, and no "ritten e)planation "as made as to "h$ there "as no personal service of the claim. The co rt thereon dismissed the claim. Issue: 0hether or not the co rt erred in dismissing the mone$ claim for fail re to pa$ the doc(et fee, attach a cert. of non%for m shoping, and ma(e a personal service. Ruling: The co rt erred in strictl$ appl$ing Sec. 2, R le 22 of the R les of .o rt #eca se s ch calls also for practica#ili$ for it to appl$ other than the a#sence of special provisions. The certification of non%for m shopping is re< ired onl$ for complaints and other initiator$ pleadings. The RT. erred in r ling that a contingent mone$ claim against the estate of a decedent is an initiator$ pleading. On the iss e of filing fees, the .o rt r led in -asc al v. .o rt of /ppeals, that the trial co rt has ; risdiction to act on a mone$ claim *attorne$,s fees+ against an estate for services rendered #$ a la"$er to the administratri) to assist her in f lfilling her d ties to the estate even "itho t pa$ment of separate doc(et fees #eca se the filing fees shall constit te a lien on the ; dgment

p rs ant to Section 2, R le 141 of the R les of .o rt, or the trial co rt ma$ order the pa$ment of s ch filing fees "ithin a reasona#le time. on the iss e of personal service, as in 6 sa v. /mor, a "ritten e)planation "h$ service "as not done personall$ =might have #een s perfl o s> #eca se the distance from the petitioner,s residence and the respondent co rt is ver$ far. -etition granted. Comment: 5es, in this case the co rt "as too #linded "ith its sense of d t$ to follo" to the r les to the letters. The co rt sho ld have rela)ed and li#erall$ constr ed the proced ral r le on the re< irement of a "ritten e)planation for non%personal service, in the interest of s #stantial ; stice. ?eca se in the end, it "o ld #e the estate that "o ld #enefit pon #eing given notice of a mone$ claim against it so it can #e inspected and verified. ". Re#es vs nri$ue% Facts: -etitioners claim to #e the la"f l heirs of @ionisia Re$es "ho co%o"ned the s #;ect parcel of land located in Talisa$, .e# , "ith /nacleto .a#rera. On the other hand respondents, claim to #e the heirs of /nacleto .a#rera, as h s#and and da ghter of /nacleto,s da ghter. On ' ne 17, 1777, petitioners -eter and @e#orah /nn Anri< eB, sold 200 s<. m. o t of the 1091 s<. m. for -200,000.00 to Spo ses @ionisio and .atalina 8ernandeB *Spo ses 8ernandeB+, also their co%respondents in this case. 0hen Spo ses 8ernandeB, tried to register their share in the s #;ect land, the$ discovered that certain doc ments prevent them from doing soC *1+ /ffidavit #$ /nacleto .a#rera dated 6arch 11, 1792 stating that his share in Lot Do. 1391, the s #;ect propert$, is appro)imatel$ E17 s<. m.F *2+ /ffidavit #$ @ionisia Re$es dated ' l$ 1E, 1727 stating that /nacleto onl$ o"ned G of Lot Do. 1391, "hile E02.99 s<. m. #elongs to @ionisia and the rest of the propert$ is co%o"ned #$ Dicolasa ?acalso, ' an Re$es, 8lorentino Re$es and 6a)imiano @ico. /lleging that the doc ments are fra d lent and fictitio s, the respondents filed a complaint for ann lment or n llification of the aforementioned doc ments and for damages. The$ li(e"ise pra$ed for the >repartition and res #division> of the s #;ect propert$. The RT. dismissed the case, # t pon appeal it "as reversed, hence the petition. Issue: 0hether or not the respondents have to instit te a special proceeding to determine their stat s as heirs of /nacleto .a#rera #efore the$ can file an ordinar$ civil action to n llif$ the affidavits of /nacleto .a#rera and @ionisia Re$es. Ruling: 5es, the determination of "ho are the legal heirs of the deceased co ple m st #e made in the proper special proceedings in co rt, and not in an ordinar$ s it for reconve$ance of propert$. This m st ta(e precedence over the action for reconve$ance. The respondents have $et

to s #stantiate their claim as the legal heirs of /nacleto .a#rera "ho are, th s, entitled to the s #;ect propert$. The R les of .o rt provide that onl$ a real part$ in interest is allo"ed to prosec te and defend an action in co rt. / real part$ in interest is the one "ho stands to #e #enefited or in; red #$ the ; dgment in the s it or the one entitled to the avails thereof. S ch interest, to #e considered a real interest, m st #e one "hich is present and s #stantial, as disting ished from a mere e)pectanc$, or a f t re, contingent, s #ordinate or conse< ential interest. Comment: This r ling of the co rt is onl$ proper #eca se if people are allo"ed to file claims "itho t verif$ing first their respective interest, then the "hole s$stem "ill #e in sham#les. ?eca se then, co rts "o ld tr$ to decide on claims # t onl$ to find o t later that the claimants do not reall$ have interest to the claim, "asting the co rts time,mone$, and reso rces.